Speaking purely for myself (and I am am pretty much an anti) I find it offensive (although vastly less offensive than, say, supremacism) on the abstract grounds that I think racism is mistaken.

What is racism? Is it racist, or prejudice, to prefer to be around members of my family over a stranger? Is it racist to be proud of my heritage, and want to see it thrive into the future?

Quote:

(But my biggest gripe if I had to live there would be that it would be very limited culturally.)

I disagree. We would build a unique culture that reflects our behavioral norms. Multiculturalism, in the sense of multiracialism, will inevitably destroy unique cultures and heritage. Certainly, you may live your life in a "multicultural" environment, but there is a good chance that your great-great grandchildren will be living in a homogenous society. So, for your own pleasure today, you will destroy diversity tomorrow, just so you can be subjected to different cultures. Sounds selfish to me. Well, I have news for you, there are dozens of multicultural nations in the world; why must all white nations become multicultural as well?

Want to live in a multicultural environment? Move to Brazil.

Quote:

But if people can manage to live in the society they want to live in without harming (in any way whatsoever) anyone else, fine.

In the grand scheme of things, sacrifices will have to be made. In order to develop an all-white nation out of a portion of the U.S., some people might have to be moved. Of course, they would be compensated.

Quote:

Anyway, assuming that I did possess 'strong racial beliefs' (which I don't), it doesn't follow that I would therefore want to live in a segregated society.

Declining birth rates plus massive immigration into western countries equals the destruction of the founding populations. Genocide keeps a certain group from reproducing, as to keep them from passing on their genes. Racial genocide is to dilute a group's genes so much to the point where they are no longer able to pass on their unique genetic makeup. We are against the genocide of ANY people.

But my biggest gripe if I had to live there would be that it would be very limited culturally.

Do you have something to back this claim with? I mean, wasn't it prior to advent of today's in-your-face multicult that most non-white cultures and languages were explored, studied, categorized by Whites? Of course, like with all disciplines, some improvements certainly did happen in very recent decades, but doesn't seem like multicult is some defining influence in that. Knowledge base about world cultures was steadily improving anyway. If multicult is an influence, it's in aggressive demoting of everything White / classical culture as uncool and promotion of everything non-white (often quite primitive, objectively) in popular culture.

I don't think it's felt in any way "limited" to people in White countries. People who wanted and who had mental faculties to do it, could learn foreign languages, including non-white ones, and study non-white culture. For real explorers who wanted a first-hand experience, travel was available. If there were less non-white influences and traces in everything, it's not because people were somehow "impaired", it was a matter of natural preference and choice. Honestly, what is preferable - great paintings and classical music or some cave - era art and primitive drum beating? Of course, it's ignorant to limit non-white cultural contributions to this (although some non-white areas are indeed not surpassing this level), but where non-white cultures had something to offer, it WAS discovered and popularized by White countries anyway, and non-white presence in the hearlands wasn't necessary for this. Vedic culture from India for example was introduced by enthusiasts who travelled to India, studied and translated interesting pieces of spiritual and philosophical heritage. Culture from Arabic world wasn't in any way hidden too. Omar Khayam's verses are known for probably like a century. It didn't take to have muslim ghettoes in a White country to have this introduced.

So, unfortunatelly many people ARE culturally limited today. But it's not because there's some racism or whatever. It's because on TV they dedicate much time to some thugs rapping about doing violence and crime. And far too little time to promote REAL culture. Actually if you take a person out of today's European country (pick a most non-racist and multicult one for your convenience) and compare it to an educated person a century or more ago in a White country, you'll discover that today's person is much more culturally limited (objectively looking) than a person from old uncool and (by today's standart) very racist countries. Those people received classical education, spoke a bunch of European languages and were well-oriented in the world of classical culture - visual, music, prose, everything. What does today's inhabitant of a multicult country possess to contest that and prove he/she is less culturally limited? Negro slang he/she picked from watching MTV? Some priceless experience from dealing with rude and violent non-whites?

Slanders55
We would build a unique culture that reflects our behavioral norms.

Weeeell, whose 'cultural norms' are we talking abut here, and how would the norm norm be decided? My cultural norms are basically those of secular humanism, with modernist (haven't got to grips with post-modernism yet) literary/artistic tastes, "socialist" (from a US perspective, MOTR from a Euro perspective) politics/economics, and no qualms about anyone's sexuality. I'm also really pleased that I live somewhere which has very strong firearm controls, and would want my white homeland to have the same. Am I going to fit in?

Just because we share genes doesn't mean we think the same.

Quote:

Slanders55
Multiculturalism, in the sense of multiracialism, will inevitably destroy unique cultures and heritage.

If you're implying that the proximity of other races/cultures inevitably leads to them merging, I disagree. For example, India is perhaps the most culturally/racially diverse country in the world, and has been for a VERY long time. There are pressures towards homogenisation but they come from consumerism, not multiculturalism.

Also, Europe itself is amazingly diverse culturally, yet these cultures have lived in close contact for thousands of years. (If you want to argue that a Greek fisherman and a Danish forester have basically the same culture you are going to have a tough time. I wouldn't really even want to argue that a Greek fisherman and a Greek airline pilot have the same culture.)

While all whites may not agree with WN principles, there are still a vast number that if given the choice would choose to live in a white nieghborhood. The crime rate is much lower, and the schools are much better. The standard of living is higher. The propety values are much are higher. Did you ever notice that when blacks move into a white nieghborhood, the crime rate climbs and all of the above loses value? The races must separate to maintain standard of living. Each culture values things the other doesn't. Why drag down the whites' standards to the level of the blacks just to make them feel wanted, and keep them from whining? I don't hate blacks and don't want to deny them their rights, I just don't want to live or work or associate with them. I prefer living in a community with a majority of whites so the living standards stay at a level which I would like my children and family to live. Whites should not have to "dumb themselves down" just because the negroes and other ethnic groups do not have the mental or social capabilities to make them the standard bearers for quality that whites are. Some whites do get enraged or turned off when WN's sound off, but I think if the message gets toned and watered down, then it is not the same. Separation of the races is the goal, not homogenization.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that one thing that's counter-productive for WN is an assumption that non-WN whites are either deluded or race-traitors.

That isn't necessarily the case. Many informed people don't agree with WN premises or goals (for a wide variety of reasons). In most (all?) "white" countries these people vastly outnumber WNers.

Insisting that whites who disagree with you are deluded or race traitors merely adds to opposition to WN without actually achieving anything.

I understand how this attitude by WNers comes about - you get a lot of flack and you are constantly having to defend your position - but wouldn't it be simpler (and arguably a better means of achieving your goal) to say "We want to live only with people who agree with us; if you want to join us, fine. If not, no hard feelings."

The trouble is, this is not a "live and let live"/"agree to disagree" kind of issue. By their opposition to White Nationalism (and similar principles upon which America was founded), these White people are, in essence, causing harm to their nation and people. The worst part about it is, when asked, they can't really explain why they're against White Nationalism. Likewise, they seem woefully unable to provide any convincing arguments that our current multiculturalists policies will not lead this country to disaster.

The only thing that can be discerned is that they are against WN (or "racism," as they would call it) to make themselves feel good. It makes them feel morally superior to other White people and their ancestors to take on this phony, self-righteous view that they do. These people practically condemn our Founding Fathers as "evil racists" and would rather that that first 175 years of US history never happened. These are mostly spoiled brats who have had everything handed to them on a silver platter, and being the ingrates that they are, they condemn their forebears who made all their luxury and comfort possible.

You don't think they should called out for that? You don't think they should be called out for their gross irresponsibility in leaving future generations with nothing but massive debts, cultural chaos, political instability, and the everpresent threat of international terrorism using WMDs? The fact that these people vastly outnumber White Nationalists is all the more reason to call them out and expose them for what they are: Hypocrites. Those Whites who have a sense of morality and honor would immediately recognize this and change their ways. Those who would get defensive about it are merely revealing their true colors as irresponsible, narcissistic and generally bad citizens, so I can't see how they would be assets to White Nationalism (or America) anyway.

Quote:

It's worth noting that ethnic groups which have succeeded in claiming some legal recognition of (and benefits from) their separateness from mainstream society tend to be non-combative in their PR, tend not to claim racial superiority, and tend not to villify other members of their ethnic group for choosing to stay in the mainstream. (Yes,there are exceptions to this.)

Did you have any specific ethnic groups in mind? I know that it's not blacks, mestizos, American Indians, semites or Asians, so which non-white group has been non-combative?

I can understand your point in that you can get more flies with excrement than with vinegar, but if White people are so hellbent on flushing their own nation's future down the toilet, what can anyone really do about it? Beg them to stop? Try to appeal to their sense of honor and responsibility to their posterity? Do they even have a sense of honor? Do they even know what it is to be responsible? Do they even care? How can you make apathetic, complacent people care?

Future generations of White Americans may wonder why their nation has turned to crap, and I feel that, at the very least, we owe them a truthful answer to that question. I think that we should tell the truth about what has happened to this country, and in order to do this, we must point out those who are ultimately responsible: Whites who oppose(d) White Nationalism. Contrary to what most antis believe, I don't even "blame the Jews," as I believe it's the fault of White people for allowing themselves to be manipulated and suckered.

The bottom line is, either these Whites support their race, or they are against their race. There is no in-between. Some Whites might get defensive over this, but if they wish to avoid being called a "traitor" in this forum, then all they need to do is convince us that multiculturalism and globalism will be good for future generations of White people.

In other words, they should tell us what's in it for White people.

Instead of saying that multiculturalism is our "obligation" and "atonement" for all of our past sins, they should give more practical reasons.

Instead of merely hiding behind the mantle of law and demonstrating blind obedience to the current government, they should tell us why they think this current government is going to lead us on the path of "enlightenment" and "tolerance."

Instead of asking us why we "hate" non-whites, they should tell us why they "love" non-whites.

Instead of pedantically grasping at strawmen and engaging in pseudo-intellectual sophistry in arguing against WN, why can't they take a more honest and open approach? After all, I find it extremely difficult to believe that somebody would so vociferously and vehemently oppose White Nationalism merely because someone might have put forth a possibly flawed theory regarding Kennewick Man, Ancient Egypt, or "Holocaust" Revisionism (just to name a few anti-racist pet issues). I don't recall any of that being mentioned in any of Martin Luther King's speeches or in any of the original arguments used to justify the Civil Rights Act or other such anti-racist/multiculturalist edicts, so why should these antis use such irrelevant, pointless arguments against WN, unless they're just trying to obfuscate and cloud the issues?

Even if I may come across as harsh, all I've ever asked of a White anti-racist is for them to prove to me that they're real, that they're not some kind of propaganda parrot or some pseudo-intellectual mental masturbator (such as those who constantly rag about WN being "irrational" and/or "illogical," while trying to give us "lessons" in argumentation - give me a break). I'm not going to fault them for opposing White Nationalism as long as they can give me a legitimate and practical reason why. That's all I've ever really asked for, and to date, not one single White anti has done so.

They're White, and yet, they can't think of any practical benefit for multiculturalism. Furthermore, they've demonstrated over and over that they don't really care about any practical benefit (or even if there is any detriment to our society as a result of multiculturalism); it's only the principle that matters to them. Some White antis have even said that Whites deserve to suffer over all of our collective "sins." Such a view is tantamount to treason, so I don't think it's too far off the mark to say that White antis are traitors. After all, the entire anti-racist, multiculturalist ideology was born out of Marxist-inspired anti-Americanism. This has been demonstrated by tracing back to the precursors of these two modern ideals. Trotsky was the one who originally coined the term "racist," so anyone who uses that term in a discussion is an unwitting Trotskyite. You don't think Trotskyites should be called "traitors"? If they're not "traitors," then they're "dupes," which is just as bad.

Some of us here believe that race and culture are intrinsically related. As such, one cannot have western culture, without whites. Of course, people will have their individual preferences and norms, but what decides the culture of the land is the common behavior and norms of the group. Indeed, just because one guy is a killer, doesn't mean all of us are. I am basically stating that our common heritage will lead the average person to think more alike, and so, create a common culture. This is why Germany and America have very similar ethical and comminicational standards.

For example, blacks appear to exhibit a culture of aggressive behavior, which leads to all sorts of bad things including denigration of women and crime. As we educated folk know, this "culture", or group behavioral norm, is not subjected onto the individual because if that were true, then we couldn't have Oprah or Tiger. On the other hand, we also know this is not confined to geographical, or environmental, reasons. As a group, blacks exhibit the same aggressive culture whether they are in South America, North America, and especially damning, in their homeland of Africa. To go further, all western nations seem to have an emphasis on individual merit and a lack of egotism, which leads to good things like social harmony and wealth. Of course, it doesn't mean an individual white guy won't be a criminal.

Quote:

If you're implying that the proximity of other races/cultures inevitably leads to them merging, I disagree. For example, India is perhaps the most culturally/racially diverse country in the world, and has been for a VERY long time. There are pressures towards homogenisation but they come from consumerism, not multiculturalism.

That's exactly what I'm referring too. India is a perfect example. At one time, the indo-Aryans were white, but they were soon mixed with the indigenous populations even with the existence of the caste system, which is still in use today. Although, the caste system has succeeded in the preservation of a diverse land, it failed to keep all parties "pure".

Central America is another good example. Without the existence of some type of segregation, such as the caste system, Central America's Native American population consumed the white Spanish population in less that 400 years. Presently, Central America is fairly homogenized, with the "elite" groups a little lighter than the population.

When different groups are considered equals and within the same boundary, they will inevitably mix. This is a fact of life, you breed with your peers.

If you're implying that the proximity of other races/cultures inevitably leads to them merging, I disagree. For example, India is perhaps the most culturally/racially diverse country in the world, and has been for a VERY long time. There are pressures towards homogenisation but they come from consumerism, not multiculturalism.

Also, Europe itself is amazingly diverse culturally, yet these cultures have lived in close contact for thousands of years. (If you want to argue that a Greek fisherman and a Danish forester have basically the same culture you are going to have a tough time. I wouldn't really even want to argue that a Greek fisherman and a Greek airline pilot have the same culture.)

You don't get it, in India and in Europe those are seperated geographically, so theres diversity. Thats good, they also have breathing room from the other cultures.

When you *Force* people to live together, they will blend. One way or another it is inevitable. Either that or if they refuse to blend, warfare comes about because of differences. Then antis reply "we need to teach people to be tolerant then". Well, the only people I have seen that learn "tolerance" are liberal whites, and these people have little to no sense of their former culture in my opinion.

If you have beliefs of your own, something to stand up for, like a sense of ethics, that will conflict with other cultures who's ethics may differ. This results in conflict, so the "tolerance" says you should change for sensitivity purposes. What happened to it being "multi" here?

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that one thing that's counter-productive for WN is an assumption that non-WN whites are either deluded or race-traitors.

Yes, that is both common and stupid among WNs.

To be a "traitor" one must first swear loyalty to something. The vast majority of whites have been raised to be color-blind or at least to look down on white racial solidarity. If anything, WNs are traitors to that ideology.

Quote:

Insisting that whites who disagree with you are deluded or race traitors merely adds to opposition to WN without actually achieving anything.

Yep.

Quote:

I understand how this attitude by WNers comes about - you get a lot of flack and you are constantly having to defend your position - but wouldn't it be simpler (and arguably a better means of achieving your goal) to say "We want to live only with people who agree with us; if you want to join us, fine. If not, no hard feelings."

This is also a very common position and sentiment in our ranks.

Personally, I go a step further and say I don't want anti-racist whites in our ranks or as citizens for a white nation. I'm not indifferent, I actively oppose solidarity with such people. The first thing anti-racist whites would do if forced into a white nation would be to set about destroying it; no thanks.

Quote:

It's worth noting that ethnic groups which have succeeded in claiming some legal recognition of (and benefits from) their separateness from mainstream society tend to be non-combative in their PR, tend not to claim racial superiority, and tend not to villify other members of their ethnic group for choosing to stay in the mainstream. (Yes,there are exceptions to this.)

Yes and no. Let's not forget that the mainstream media gave non-white groups a helping hand, something they'll never do for us. They kept the spotlight on the MLKs and away from the violent types. They'll do the opposite with us. I'm not arguing your conclusions, mind you. I agree 100% that WNs have absolutely no business bandying about all the talk they do about violence until they've exhausted all non-violent means. Personally I think a lot of this has to do with all the psychotics, fantasists, and agents provocateur in our movement; they don't seem to recognize that our movement's primary problem isn't anything that'll be solved with violent rhetoric, that our primary problem is our lack of numbers, a problem exacerbated by their counterproductive behavior.

The interesting thing is that even though this premise still allows anybody who wants to live in a multicultural society to do so, and is supported by both blacks and whites (and I'm sure members of other races) antis still find it offensive? Why is this antis?

Because moving millions of people around would mean interrupting families, friends, occupations, businesses etc etc, all to satisfy a relatively small number of people.

And even though somebody (I think White Resistance 14) provided a survey about X number of people who wouldnt mind segregation, but that doesnt mean they support it, or care either way. I'm guessing alot of those people wouldnt care either way, but having to move out of the new White territory or Black territory would just be a giant pain-in-the-ass to them and others, all to make WNs happy?

Speaking purely for myself (and I am am pretty much an anti) I find it offensive (although vastly less offensive than, say, supremacism) on the abstract grounds that I think racism is mistaken. (But my biggest gripe if I had to live there would be that it would be very limited culturally.) Similarly I find gated communities, aristocracies, 'old school tie' stuff offensive. But if people can manage to live in the society they want to live in without harming (in any way whatsoever) anyone else, fine.

In other words, you're a nice, boring, safe establishment type (you do know that liberalist multiculturalist lover-of-(non-white)-vibrancy is the status-quo establishment and has been for decades now, right?).